Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Namaste, On behalf of all of you I sincerely express my appreciation to Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam for providing his commentary to benefit the list members. Part IVerses 31 to 32 regards, Ram Chandran I AM EVERYTHING Elsewhere, Sankara says, `In half a verse I shall explain what has been said before by millions of words and texts — ardha-slokena pravaksyami yaduktam grantha-ko¶ibhih.' And, having already used one half of a verse to say this much, he completes the verse by saying, `Brahman is satya and the whole world, jagat, is mithya — brahma satyam jagan mithya,' and `Jiva is non-separate from Brahman — jivah brahmaiva na aparah' This means that the body, mind, and senses are also mithya. And the jiva that is other than the physical body, mind, and senses, that is atma, is Brahman. This means that, I am everything — idam sarvam aham asmi. This vision, then, is the vision that resolves the difference between the jiva and Isvara, which is why Isvara is never remote from you nor are you ever away from Him. There is no difference other than what is caused by ignorance. Ignorance being removed, all that is there is one flame of consciousness in which everything exists — everything that is inquired into, everything that is not inquired into, the known and the unknown, all exist in atma, alone. The atma of Isvara and the atma of the jiva is one and the same atma whose svarupa is consciousness. This consciousness, this atma, alone is self-existent, the whole, which is Isvara, which is the jiva. Further, Krsna contiues: sarvabhutasthitam yo mam bhajatyekatvamasthitah sarvatha vartamano'pi sa yogi mayi vartate Verse 31 yah — the one who; ekatvam — oneness; ()asthitah (san) — having gained; sarva-bhuta-sthitam — abiding in all beings; mam — Me; bhajati — gains (the vision); sah yogi — that yogi; sarvatha — in whatever way; vartamanah — remaining; api — even; mayi — in Me; vartate — abides The one who gains (the vision), having gained the oneness of me abiding in all beings, that yogi abides in Me whatever he (or she) does. This verse continues to discuss the person who has the vision of the oneness of atma in all beings, who knows that atma is himself or herself alone, and is therefore, not separate from Isvara. Such a person knows himself or herself to be Isvara in fact. All this is restated here. `Mam sarva-bhuta-sthitam yo bhajati' — this refers to the one who gains the vision, i.e., the one who has this vision of Isvara as that, which abides in all beings. Therefore, the self is non-separate from Paramesvara. The vision that is gained is in terms of the oneness of atma — the oneness of atma that is never divided, that is the undivided whole. And the one who recognises Isvara in this undivided form, ekatvam asthitah, the one who gains this vision of Isvara, that yogi, however he or she may live, remains with Isvara — sarvatha vartamanah api sah yogi mayi vartate. Thus Krsna says, `The person remains in Me alone.' This verse answers the question of whether, having gained the vision, it can ever be lost. I am often asked, `Swamiji, suppose a person gains this vision, is it not possible that living in the day-to-day world of duality, the person can lose the atma? `No!' Krsna says here. Whatever the person does, whatever happens to the person, seeing, hearing, talking, walking, in whichever way he or she happens to live, whether as a brahmacari, a grhastha, or a sannyasi, whether a man or a woman, young or old — sarvatha vartamanah api — the vision remains. The stage of life the person is in or the profession he or she happens to be pursuing is all because of the person's prarabdha. In fact, there is nothing wrong for the person and there is nothing right either. FOR THE PERSON WHO HAS THE VISION, SASTRA IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE Whatever the sastra says with reference to dharma and adharma no longer applies to the person who is above dharma and adharma. This must be clearly understood. The person is free and therefore, called mukta, nitya-mukta, one who is always free. This free person never goes away from Me. Never again do I become remote for the person because one can never be away from oneself. Even now, I am not away from the truth of myself, sat-cit-ananda-atma. Only ignorance can keep me away and, for the person being discussed here, ignorance is gone. Therefore, wherever the person is, whatever he or she is doing — sarvatha vartamanah api — the person remains in Me, oneself, alone — mayi vartate. There is no moving away from Me for the person who is a jivan-mukta i.e., living, the person is liberated. This liberation, moksa, is the phala, the result of this vision, this knowledge of atma. WHEN YOU 'BELIEVE' IN ISVARA, HE IS REMOTE The conclusion here, then, is that Isvara is not something remote from oneself — Isvarah na paroksah. Paroksa is what is inferred, believed, or presumed. You have a presumption that there is an Isvara, which amounts to a belief because there is no verifiable proof. And, as long as existence of Isvara is simply a belief, Isvara is remote, something that exists for you indirectly, i.e., paroksa, because it is a belief. Similarly, if you say that a tree exists, but you do not directly see it, it is paroksa. For example, by seeing smoke, you can assume there is fire, even though the fire is not directly seen by you. Any object whose existence is arrived at by you through inference is called paroksa, indirectly known, for you. Whereas anything that is sensorily perceived — anything you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch — is called pratyaksa. When I hold up a piece of crystal, knowing it is crystal it is pratyaksa for me, but for you it will be paroksa if you do not know whether it is crystal or glass. You can infer it is crystal until you feel the weight of it and then you will know. The point to be understood here is what is directly perceived is called pratyaksa and what is indirectly arrived at is called paroksa. Isvara cannot be pratyaksa. If Isvara could be directly perceived, it would mean that he is other than yourself — anatma. Isvara cannot be anatma because he can never be an object for you. Anatma is entirely dependent upon caitanya, atma. If Isvara were to become anatma, he would be mithya and you, being atma, would become satya! Because Isvara cannot be anatma, he can never become pratyaksa, an object of your perception. Nor can he be inferred, inference being based on perception. Still, you believe that Isvara exists, which means Isvara is paroksa. The person who believes that Isvara exists is called an astika, one who believes. And, for the astika, there is a pramana, a sastra, through which he or she comes to understand, comes to believe, that Isvara exists. And because you believe, you give validity to the means of knowledge, the sastra, even though what is said is not verifiable. Because some supporting logic is available, you accept that Isvara exists — and this belief, this acceptance, is paroksa-jnana, indirect knowledge. SELF-KNOWLEDGE IS IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE But the knowledge being discussed in this verse is not paroksa-jnana. The one who has gained the knowledge of atma is the one who has gained the knowledge of oneself. Such a person concludes, `I am everything. There is nothing separate from me.' Here, when the Lord says, `Me,' what is implied is pure consciousness, caitanya, which is param brahma, satya-jnana-ananta-brahma, and everything else is dependent upon that. And this satya-jnana-ananta-brahma, is atma, oneself. Because there is no difference between Isvara, Brahman, and myself, I never become paroksa to him; nor does he become paroksa to me. This is what we call advaita, the non-difference, abheda, between Isvara, and the jiva. This identity between the jiva and Isvara, jiva-isvara-aikya, was pointed out in the previous verse also. Sankara also points out in his commentary of the previous verse that atma never becomes paroksa, Atma is always free, nitya-mukta. There is no bondage for atma because there is nothing other than oneself; therefore, Krsna says, `The person remains in Me alone — mayi eva vartate. This means that once ignorance is no longer there, there is no question of the knowledge being lost. Knowledge of oneself, atma-jnana, is not memory-based. Only knowledge that is memory-based can be forgotten. Whatever you have, you can always lose. Memory is for me, atma. Because memory is something I have, I can lose it. But, here, what is known is myself alone. The self-ignorance I had before is gone in the wake of knowledge wherein the self is equated with Brahman. Once gained, this knowledge is never lost. Unless atma becomes paroksa, there is no question of the wise person being away from Me and atma can never become paroksa because it is nitya-aparoksa, it is always directly known by you. Whether you are a confused person, a discriminating person, or a jnani, atma is never paroksa. Samsara is directly known by the person; it is not something that is inferred. It is an experience for the person and, therefore, aparoksa. As a samsari, ajnani, `I am' is aparoksa; and as a viveki, jnani also `I am' is aparoksa. Therefore, atma is nitya-aparoksa, always self-evident. Being nitya-aparoksa, atma is nitya-mukta, always liberated. Knowledge makes the person recognise the fact of being ever liberated. This is why the person is also called jivan-mukta — living, the person gains the knowledge that is liberation. Once this knowledge has been gained, let the person do whatever he wants, perform vaidika-karma or not, teach or not teach. Let the person be in any stage of life and perform any action, he or she is still with Me alone. Even, for the sake of argument, if such a person were to commit murder, the person would not be away from Me because he or she is not a doer. The next question, of course, is `Could such a person commit such actions?' `No!' says Krsna in the next verse. Wrong action is not possible for the person. atmaupamyena sarvatra samam pasyati yo'rjuna sukham va yadi va duhkham sa yogi paramo matah Verse 32 arjuna — O Arjuna!; yah — the one who; sarvatra — everywhere; sukham va — either pleasure; yadi va duhkham — or pain; atma-aupamyena — taking oneself as an example (basis); samam — the same; pasyati — sees; sah — that; yogi — yogi; paramah — the most exalted; matah — is regarded If one who, taking oneself as an example (basis) in all situations sees either pleasure or pain as the same, that yogi, O Arjuna, is regarded as the most exalted. Here, Krsna obviates the problem of whether the wise person can perform any action of adharma, by showing that there is no way of his doing that. For such a person, atma, oneself, is the upama, the example. The self itself becomes the example — atma- aupamyam. One who is oneself as an example sees that which is equal in all beings, sarvatra samam pasyati, as being equal to oneself alone. The person does not look upon others from any other matrix except himself or herself alone. With reference to all beings, the vision is equal, the same. One looks upon others as oneself alone on the basis of the example of oneself. This is one meaning. There is also another meaning, which we shall see later. In the second line of the verse, the vision of sameness is pointed out in terms of happiness and pain, sukham va duhkham va. My happiness, sukha, my welfare, is highly desirable to me and, therefore, I go for it, which is the same for everyone. Every being is equally interested in its own sukha. Therefore, `I' become the matrix, the basis, for my interaction with other beings. Similarly, duhkha is what is not desirable for me or for anyone else either. THE BASIS OF DHARMA Here you can see how dharma itself is born. The very basis of dharma is the universal mutual expectation of people. What I expect of others is what others expect of me. If what is desirable, sukha, for me is desirable for others and what is undesirable, duhkha, for me is undesirable for others also, then there is a common basis, which is what is meant by dharma. Having the vision of sameness in all beings, then, the person discussed here does not do what is not desirable. Therefore, what Krsna said in the previous verse, `Whatever the person does, he (or she) remains in Me — sarvatha vartamanah api mayi vartate,' is further explained here. What was said there could be misunderstood to mean that a jnani could do things that are adharma and yet he remains in Isvara. Therefore, answering the question, `Will such a person do actions that are considered to be wrong, adharma?' Krsna says `No!' It is not possible because what is good for the jnani is good for others too. And what is bad for the jnani is bad for others also. If the jnani does not like getting hurt, then he or she is not going to hurt anyone else. In this way, non-injury, ahimsa, becomes natural to the jnani. Even for a viveki, a simple, mature person, ahimsa is a very common dharma. And, for a jnani, one who has lived a life of dharma and who has deliberately pursued and gained the knowledge, dharma becomes spontaneous, very natural. If you look at any crime, like hurting another person, or any kind of action considered to be adharma, behind it there is always a small ego. Every ego is small, in fact. A big ego is also small, any ego being just a bubble filled with air. Whether the bubble is big or small, it is nothing but air. That is all there is to this ego business, just so much air. Ego itself is a false entity and this false entity is behind every crime, large or small. THE NATURE OF THE EGO And what kind of ego is this? The ego of an insecure person, an insecure ego that has fear and greed. Because it has fear and greed, it is insecure; because it is insecure, it is frightened. A frightened person or a greedy person can perform actions that are not very committed to dharma. In fact, all unbecoming actions stem from the insecure ego and no ego is secure. Because the nature of ego is isolation, there is duality, dvaita. In the Brhadaranyakopanisad, it is said that wherever there is duality, there will be fear — dvitiyad vai bhayam bhavati. A similar statement is found in the Taittiriyopanisad conveying the same sense — udaram antaram kurute atha tasya bhayam bhavati. The original duality is the duality between the individual, jiva, and Isvara, the Lord — jivesvara-dvaita — meaning that Isvara is something other than myself. This dvaita makes you small. If Isvara is everything else, you become whatever is left out. Naturally, then, you become small. Everything else is infinitely large and you are small. And, once this original dvaita is there, there is the dvaita between one individual and another — jiva-jiva-dvaita and between the jiva and the world — jiva-jagat-dvaita. Now, if the duality between jiva and jiva and between jiva and jagat is real, then the duality between jiva and Isvara is also real. Why? Because, if the jiva-jiva-dvaita and the jiva-jagat-dvaita are real, there must be an Isvara other than this jagat. Then that Isvara is just another guy, like any other jiva, and between him and the other jivas, including myself, there will be a difference. Also, between all these anatmas and myself there will be difference. All the way, then, there is difference, there being dvaita between the jivas, the jagat, and Isvara. If there is dvaita between the jivas, between the jiva and the jagat, and between the jagat and Isvara — if there is dvaita between these three — then your isolation is established. Mortality is established, imperfection is established, inadequacy is established all of which are accompanied by fear, greed, pain, sorrow, etc. EGO IS IGNORANCE-BASED Since ego implies isolation, behind every crime there is ego. But the yogi Krsna is talking about is the one who has pricked the bubble of this ego. The bubble, ego, is no longer there; one ocean alone is there. Ego is ignorance-based, ignorance of atma. Once the ignorance of atma is gone, all that remains is one atma, which is param brahma. There is no ego anymore. And, when the ego is not there, where is the question of the person doing anything improper? The person abides in Isvara alone — mayi eva vartate. But for the sake of argument, you can say that the person can do anything he or she likes. Even though the person still does various things, whatever these may be or however they are done, the person remains in me alone. This is sastra. When the Lord says, `remaining in Me alone,' it means that the person is never separate from him — in other words, the person and the Lord are one and the same. A person who has this equal vision everywhere has no necessity to do things that are not in keeping with dharma. The person naturally sees that what is sukha for him or her is also sukha for others and what is duhkha for him or her is duhkha for other people as well. But will the person who has this vision not compromise it in any way? After all, most people understand that what makes them happy or unhappy affects others in the same way, but still they do not always behave according to dharma. Suppose something becomes so important to this person, is it not possible that the vision will be set aside, temporarily at least? In fact, this problem will not arise because, for the person who has this vision, there is no notion that `I am limited.' There is knowledge that the same atma is in all beings and all beings are in oneself, atma, alone. The ego for this person is badhita, sublated. It is no more taken as real. Therefore, this person is one for whom ahimsa is natural, which is in fact the spirit of sannyasa. A person who has this clear vision of atma, samyag-darsana-nis¶ha, who is naturally, spontaneously, given to ahimsa, who no longer needs to practice ahimsa deliberately because it is his or her very nature, is described here as the most exalted, parama, among yogis. A SECOND INTERPRETATION OF THE VERSE We can look at this verse in another way using the option offered by the word `va' as `or,' by adding this va (or) to sukha and duhkha — sukham va yadi va duhkham. Here, situations are categorised in a two-fold way, those producing sukha and those producing duhkha, both of which the wise person looks at equally — samam pasyati. This means that, for the person, sukha and duhkha are the same. Why? Because he or she looks at them both with the example of himself or herself alone. Atma being the example, the basis of measurement, the matrix of judgement, the person sees that which is equal in both sukha and duhkha. How is this possible? Because the person understands the nature of atma as fullness, wholeness, and from this basis, he or she looks at sukha and duhkha. Both are within that fullness alone. This does not mean that the person does not meet with situations producing sukha and duhkha. The point being made here is that the person looks at all situations, even the duhkha of death, from the basis of atma alone. Because the person knows oneself, atma as fullness there is no ripple of reaction whatever the situation. To put it another way, when sukha comes, the person's fullness does not increase and when duhkha comes, the fullness does not decrease, meaning that the person is always with Isvara — mayi eva vartate. There is no situation which is going to take the person away from Isvara. This, is the connection with the previous verse where it was said, `Whatever the person does — sarvatha vartamanah api.' There is no question of the person `being away from Me, Isvara' or `forgetting Me, Isvara,' because of any situation involving duhkha or sukha. Why? Because atma is the example, the basis, upama for the person — the atma that is aham, `I.' Previously, it was pointed out that atma is Paramesvara, paramatma. Therefore, paramatma is the upama, the example, for the person who comes to bear upon all situations with the fullness that is the nature of atma. This particular interpretation is in keeping with the example of the river and the ocean in the second chapter of the Gita. The verse says: apuryamanamacalapratis¶ham samudramapah pravisanti yadvat tadvatkama yam pravisanti sarve sa santimapnoti na kamakami (2-70) Apuryamana means fullness, that which is completely filled from all sides, like the ocean, samudra. Acala means that the ocean remains in its own glory and does not move around. Pratis¶ha is that which is well rooted, meaning the ocean is well rooted in its own glory. And, into this ocean, waters enter — apah pravisanti, from different directions. Is the ocean affected in any way by this event? Does the oceanness increase? No. And if no waters enter for a time, because of drought, etc., the oceanness also does not decrease. Oceans do not dry up; nor do they overflow. Such situations simply do not occur. FULLNESS DEPENDS ON NOTHING This example is a good one in terms of the fullness that is the nature of atma; the example holds water in other words! Whether the waters enter or do not enter, the ocean always remains the same. It is always oceanness because oceanness does not depend upon any other source of water to be ocean. Similarly, here, the yogi, a wise person, who is ananta, does not depend for his or her fullness upon a given situation. Whatever happens, sukha or duhkha, the person sees them both equally; therefore, he or she remains tranquil — sa santim apnoti. Whatever objects, kamas enter, from whatever direction, through the gates of the five sense organs, they do not disturb the person at all, just as the ocean is not disturbed by the waters. Whereas, the person who is a desirer of various objects, kamakami, who is dependent upon their presence or absence for his or her happiness, is likened to a pond. If too much water comes in the form of rain or floods, you do not see the pond at all, and if there is no rain, it dries up altogether. Similarly, the kamakami is like a yo-yo; if something desirable comes along, he or she goes up and if it is something undesirable, the person goes down. However, for the yogi discussed here, there is no yo-yo because he or she remains with Me, the self, alone. Whatever the tragedy, even if it meets the classical orthodox definition of a genuine tragedy, the person remains the same. This is the yogi Krsna is discussing here in keeping with the previous verse. Thus, there are two interpretations possible here; the yogi remains the same in any situation, whether it be sukha or duhkha, and the yogi looks upon others as he or she looks upon himself or herself. This being so, the person will not perform a wrong action. To treat others as you would have them treat you is applicable to everyone, in fact. Every human being is supposed to live this way, what to talk of a yogi! TO HURT OTHERS IS TO BE HURT IN THE PROCESS No one can hurt another without getting hurt in the process, even though it may sometimes seem to be otherwise. We see this even in tennis matches. You begin with `love' and then you fight to win. And, when you do win, you are ecstatic. On the way to the net to shake hands with your opponent, you jump up and down and throw your racket into the air. You are very happy — until you see the other person's sadness in having lost! Then, all your joy goes. Do you know why? Because no human heart was ever made that cannot empathise with a person who is sad. You know what it is to be on the other side of the net because you, too, have had days like that. Therefore, you cannot but pick up the other person's sadness immediately. Why? because, you can never hurt another without getting hurt in the process. It is just not possible. We think that there are criminals who have so hardened their hearts that they can automatically do harm to others, but this is not true. Even psychopaths have their spells of empathy because of how the human heart is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.